Contractual service in remote areas must count toward prescribed transfer-service tenure.

The petitioner, a Zoology teacher in the State Education Department, was transferred on 09.06.2026 from Government P.G. College, Rudrapur, to Government Degree College, Agaroda, District Tehri Garhwal. Her husband, a radiologist, was transferred from Rudrapur to Dehradun, and the petitioner claimed that her option for transfer to Dehradun had not been considered.

In an earlier writ petition, the Court permitted her to submit a representation and directed the authorities to decide it by a speaking order.

The representation was rejected on the ground that she had completed only one year and four days of service at remote places and had not completed the prescribed ten years’ remote-area service.

The petitioner contended that her contractual service at Government P.G. College, Bageshwar, from 11.12.2006 until 22.07.2016, before her regularisation on 13.07.2016, ought to be counted as remote-area service.

She also referred to the departmental circular dated 11.04.2026, which prescribed calculation of service from the date of regularisation, and noted that its validity was pending consideration in another writ petition.

1. Whether the petitioner’s service rendered as a contractual employee at a remote posting could be counted for determining her period of service at remote places under the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017.

2. Whether the order dated 10.08.2026 rejecting the petitioner’s representation was legally sustainable when it excluded her pre-regularisation contractual service from the calculation of remote-area service.

3. Whether the respondents should reconsider the petitioner’s transfer and permit her to continue at Rudrapur pending such reconsideration, subject to availability of the post.

The Court applied the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017, and the departmental transfer policy/circular dated 11.04.2026.

The governing principle was that the requirement of service at remote places is intended to ensure that employees serve in remote areas and that, for this limited purpose, the Act does not distinguish between service rendered on a contractual basis and service rendered after regular appointment.

However, counting contractual remote-area service for transfer purposes does not confer any monetary or other service benefit upon the employee.

The Court held that the object of prescribing a period of remote-area service is to ensure equitable distribution of postings and that employees serve in remote parts of the State.

The petitioner had admittedly served at Government P.G. College, Bageshwar, a remote area, during the contractual period preceding her regularisation.

Since the Transfer Act did not expressly distinguish between contractual and regular service for calculating remote-area tenure, the respondents could not exclude that service merely because the petitioner was not yet regularised.

The Court treated the counting of such service as confined to transfer-policy purposes and clarified that it would not create entitlement to monetary or other service benefits.

Consequently, the rejection order, which calculated only the post-regularisation remote service, was found unsustainable.

The State authorities were directed to pass a fresh order on the petitioner’s representation after counting her contractual service rendered at remote places, without granting any monetary or other service benefits on that basis.

In the meantime, she was to be permitted to continue at Rudrapur if the post remained vacant.

The writ petition and any pending application were accordingly disposed of.